PACs Americana

A dispatch from the future, where PACs have absorbed America's political parties.

In retrospect, the transformation began the way most major changes in
society begin: without anyone fully realizing what was taking place.
Yes, when the Supreme Court handed down its 2010 Citizens United decision  allowing virtually
unlimited spending by corporations and individuals to sway elections 
there was a fair amount of outrage, mostly from the left. President
Barack Obama, then in his first term, spoke out against what he called
the corporate takeover of our democracy. But even those who imagined the threat posed by this unfettered
influence could not have conceived of what would happen in the years
that followed.

It started slowly. The so-called "super PACs" inserted
themselves in congressional
races. They ran a number of deeply
misleading ads across the country. And they even took on roles traditionally
associated with the political parties and candidates. But in those early
days, the influence of these groups was limited: First, there were a
lot of super PACs competing with campaigns and each other for donations and
political talent. Second, they were prevented by law from coordinating with
candidates.

But that all changed after the election in 2012.

Barack Obama's narrow victory came after a brutal
campaign in which the parties spent some $2 billion, yet were almost matched
dollar for dollar by outside groups. The airwaves in swing states were saturated
with a level of political vitriol not seen in this country since the days
before the Civil War. The lack of coordination between PACs and
candidates, however, meant that while people were inundated with ads, the messages were often competing and disjointed, forgotten as soon as the commercial break was
over. Voters were angry, confused, frightened, and unmoved.

After the president's reelection, a group of senior Republican operatives, joined by energy executives, Christian conservatives, and wealthy Republican donors, gathered to commiserate over the outcome of the race, and to plot the way forward. But the meeting quickly devolved into chaos. Karl Rove and representatives of Crossroads GPS, his super PAC, nearly came to blows with Mitt Romney's campaign team -- both sides slinging accusations as to who allowed the election to slip through their fingers.

Then a junior staffer, there only to take notes, stood up.

"This is the problem," he said quietly.

Karl Rove, holding a folding chair over the prone and weeping form of Eric Fehrnstrom, paused. "What is it, son? Speak up."

"This," he said, taking a deep breath. "This is the first time any of us have been in the same room together."

Grover Norquist, who took shelter behind a potted plant at the first sign of trouble, stood up and cleared his throat. "But we were barred by law, kid. Sure, the leaders of PACs can talk, but what use is it if we can't coordinate with the campaigns?"

Karl unfolded the chair and sat down, his mind turning. "What if..." Karl squinted, shined an apple on his shirt, and took a bite. "What if there are no campaigns to coordinate with?"

Soon after, Crossroads GPS merged with the remnants of
the pro-Romney "Restore our Future" super PAC, and absorbed other smaller organizations as well. With unlimited resources and few disclosure requirements, this new entity, TruePAC, had the funds to hire away talented staffers and operatives from the
national party and campaigns. TruePAC enlisted polling firms, direct mail
distributors, and other mainstays of traditional political operations. And Rove
traveled the country delivering what became known as the PACs Americana Speech to
convince bundlers and major donors to eschew traditional campaigns and parties
to support his new organization.

His answer to a ban on coordination was to make coordination irrelevant. The PAC would be the campaign. The campaign would be the PAC. Because of the Supreme Court's ruling, campaigns really only existed to meet filing deadlines and conduct paperwork; beyond this, the real difference between an official campaign and a political action committee was a bunch of onerous rules and restrictions.

And who needed those?

Democrats, slow to see the power of this new model, were
overwhelmed by the onslaught that followed. Republicans took the White House
and Congress in an election defined by TruePAC's famous slogan, "ARGHHHHHHH,"
which was shouted by children being pushed into a volcano. It was then that the
last vestiges of the labor movement, Hollywood moguls like the chairman of NBC Hulu
Universal, prominent trial lawyers, and wealthy liberal activists decided it
was time to fight fire with fire. They created what became known as GoodPAC,
which soon leveled the playing field.

In the coming years, GoodPAC and TruePAC waged a cold war,
with candidates as their proxies, and advertisements as their arsenal.
Campaigns became mere shells, with a skeleton staff on hand to secure signatures
to gain ballot access and to file the requisite financial disclosures, which no
one cared about anymore, because they were pretty much blank. Eventually,
candidates stopped campaigning all together, fearing that any appearance would
give TruePAC or GoodPAC more recent footage that could be used in their
horrible, blood-curdling advertisements.

These tactics were of little use, however, as both PACs
hired artists to 'render' versions of the other side in various animal and
arachnid forms. Soon, people forgot which parties they originally favored, and
came to identify with GoodPAC or TruePAC alone. After a while, the elections
almost blended together. It was easy to think that GoodPAC had always been at
war with TruePAC.

In time, supporters of GoodPAC and TruePAC grew more and
more polarized, often refusing to live in the same parts of town. Campaigns were
loud and garish affairs with long marches and slogans shouted in support of
candidates rarely ever met or seen. The saddest part is, the elections
themselves were usually decided by just a few votes, with the ballot counting
extending for months or longer. Sometimes, you never even hear about who wins.

What's strange is, I could swear that there have been
times when the PACs have switched views to what the other PAC held in the last
election. And there even are rumors that some companies support both PACs. It's
hard to know, because there are no disclosures. But I don't understand how
anyone could support both GoodPAC and TruePAC when they have such wildly
different principles. Honestly, I'm not even sure if the members of TruePAC are
people at all. They seem so awful, and lack the values that made this country
strong. Are they rats? I think they may be giant rats.

At this point, I only know two things:

One, we have to do something  anything  to wrestle
control of our government away from these powerful interests that distort our
debate and limit our choices; that would scare us and divide us and deny us a
voice in our political process, in our democracy.

And two, I hate with every fiber of my being the
candidates backed by TruePAC, and I will do all that is in my power to help
elect the decent, honest people who have earned the support of GoodPAC. So will
you help us defeat the dragon-faced rat monsters who are out to destroy this
country?

Which side are you on?

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.

Jon Lovett is a writer based in Los Angeles. He previously served for three years as a speechwriter to President Obama in the White House.